The Municipal Corporation of Delhi informed the Delhi High Court that homes linked to the accused in the Uttam Nagar Holi murder case were built on an encroached public street, claiming demolition can proceed without prior notice. The Court, however, orally asked authorities not to take further demolition action until the petitioners file a fresh plea.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday orally told the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) not to take any demolition action against the houses of persons accused in the murder of a 26-year-old man during Holi celebrations in Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
The matter was heard by Justice Amit Bansal, who also advised the petitioners to withdraw their current petition and file a fresh one limited only to the demolition action taken by the civic body. The Court said that the present petition contained vague statements and also unnecessarily discussed the police investigation related to the murder case.
During the hearing, the Court recorded that
“It is pointed out that averments in the petition are vague and a separate cause of action is made. The petitioners seek liberty to withdraw the petition and file a better one within a week.”
The Court was hearing petitions filed by Shahnaz and Jarina, who approached the court seeking protection against the demolition of their homes by the MCD. Shahnaz is the mother of Sohel and Ayan, who have been questioned by police in the case, while Jarina is the mother of co-accused Imran alias Banti.
The issue arose after a 26-year-old man, Tarun Bhutolia, was killed during Holi celebrations on March 4 in Uttam Nagar. After the incident, the MCD carried out demolition on March 8 of certain portions of a house linked to one of the accused persons. The accused belong to the Muslim community while the victim was Hindu, and the incident has drawn communal attention in the area.
During the hearing, the civic body defended its actions and told the Court that the demolition was part of routine action against encroachments. According to the MCD, the structures in question were built by encroaching on a public street and therefore no prior notice was required before demolition.
The counsel appearing for the MCD told the Court,
“The demolition that took place is not (just) an unauthorised construction. They have encroached on the public street. It was not an isolated exercise. It was a routine exercise. He (the petitioner) has also encroached on the public street.”
The MCD further argued that the petitioners should clearly state before the Court that their homes were not built on public land. The civic body’s counsel said that the petitioners should submit an affidavit confirming that their houses are not built on public streets.
The counsel added,
“Let him make a statement that his house is not on the public street. Let them file an affidavit.”
However, the Court indicated that even if the authorities believed that the construction was on public land, proper notice should still be given before demolition.
Justice Bansal observed,
“(Even) if you are of the view it is on a public street, then also you will (have to) issue a notice.”
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma suggested that the case should focus only on the legality of the demolition action taken by the MCD and should not include issues related to the ongoing criminal investigation into the murder.
He submitted,
“I will suggest this. Let a petition confining only to so called MCD violation be maintained. This petition in its present form is mischievous.”
Responding to the submissions, the Court said that if the petitioners were being asked to file a fresh petition, the civic body should not take any demolition action in the meantime.
The Bench remarked,
“I will do that, but don’t take any action. It can’t be that I ask him to file a better petition, and in the meantime you remove everything.”
The MCD’s senior counsel, Senior Advocate Sanjay Poddar, however argued that the law does not require prior notice in cases where structures are found to be encroaching upon public land.
He stated before the Court,
“It makes no difference if it is removed or today or tomorrow. I am here. My lord may not record anything because they will misuse it. Let them make a statement that no portion of their house is on a public street and they have not encroached on drain.”
The Court questioned why the civic body was hesitant to issue a notice to the affected parties before demolition.
Justice Bansal asked,
“Why the hesitation in giving the notice?”
The MCD counsel reiterated that under the law, notice is not required in cases of encroachment on public land.
He responded,
“Notice is not required. Supreme Court has said that when the law does not require notice… The law says I do not require to give notice.”
The Court also raised questions about how such properties had municipal identification numbers if they were indeed built on public streets.
The Bench asked the MCD,
“How do these properties have municipal numbers then?”
During the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioners alleged that unidentified communal elements had entered the property and caused damage. It was also argued that the families were receiving repeated threats that their homes would be demolished.
The petitioners’ counsel told the Court,
“We have received multiple threats that our house will be demolished. The locks are broken. They (MCD) are saying commercial activity is taking place in the house. If that is true, give me a notice. I will reply to that.”
The Court again stressed that proper notice is necessary before any such action is taken, regardless of the allegations against the occupants.
Justice Bansal observed,
“Even if there is a chemical factory (in the house), you (MCD) have to give a notice.”
At the end of the hearing, the Court allowed the petitioners to withdraw their current petition and file a fresh and clearer one focusing only on the demolition issue. The Court also made it clear that until a fresh petition is filed, the MCD should not take further action.
The Bench directed,
“Till the time you move a fresh petition, they (MCD will not do anything.”
The petitions in the matter were filed through advocate Divyesh Pratap Singh.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Holi Murder
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
